The Stray
My second Hajj was phenomenal not just because of the multitude performing the rites all together and at the same time; a kaleidoscope of peoples and cultures. Nor because of the necessity of relying on other people within your group and helping still others. Nor because of the nearness of God to our everyday necessities and duas through simple remembrances.
But mostly because after the days of Hajj had finished a slow realisation of our state had once again dawned on me.
I try my best to perform simple acts of goodness; like the placing of my prayer mat under one who needs it after my own obligation had finished, or the simple salutations of "Hajj Mabrur" to my fellow Hajis from different nations with a smile and a hug even when we can only communicate in sign. And then on the road outside our residence in Aziziye I encouraged and helped a friend of mine feed a stray gangly cat.
The following day I entered the Grand Mosque at Mecca to pray my Jumaa Salaat. The Imam cried in the Khutbah when he recollected the great personalities of our glorious past and the people were moved. I have always had a disdain for people who cry in speeches ever since Abu Muntasir cried when talking about "these people".
Sincerity is never as simple as the shedding of tears. Nasser performed it to perfection and whilst some might argue that his aims were nationalistic, and ours are Islamic, the parallel is the same "what gain is there to be had from it other than pulling the wool over the eyes of the gullible?"
Was the Imam speaking from the heart even when we realise that his was a Nationally scripted Khutbah? For all the Saudi emphasis on the Sunnah, did the Prophet (saw) ever cry whilst giving a sermon?
(I have heard that Imam Ali (ra) cried whilst giving a sermon. But I have not looked into the context of that, nor verified its truth.)
And then on the way back to our hotel I saw another emaciated kitten and I could not help it. Recollections of small things that I had seen over the past days caused my heart to tremble first in anguish and then in anger.
But I did not cry, nor shed a tear.
A Turkish woman threatening another cat at a distance with a pipe or other implement, whilst her husband or male relative smiled on as if it were comedy. Piles of food left on the street not out of consideration for the animals of the kingdom but because of sheer waste. With such waste why are the cats of the kingdom not well fed?
The picture that pained my mind was that mercy had left this Ummah. That whilst GOD is known as ar-Rahman, for most Muslims this is simply a verbal intonation and not a pressing invitation to emulation. That just with that Imam on that day his tears and his anguish belong in the books that he reads but do not extend to the everyday lives of our people.
In stark contrast to the lives of the companions who fell over backwards in trying to help one another. Theirs was not a socialist society but a 100% mercantile and capitalist society. The imam remembered them with tears but could not frame that remembrance as a call to action for the Muslims not here, not now. The obvious reason for such a lack is that he himself did not feel that same passion for the here and now Muslims.
Off course I could be wrong with regard to that particular Imam, but I know that I'm not wrong when it comes to Imams in general. For our Prophet (saw) informed us that we will get the leaders that we deserve. Did he use the word AMIR or IMAM when referring to those leaders? I do not know.
And being at present far from home, my books and the internet I cannot check.
But I can surmise.
The Prophet (saw) also informed us that each Prophet was a shepherd (Shwan in Persian) before he became an imam of his people. The shift from shepherd to one of imam was a shift from caring to one of leading from the front.
That an imam must also care for his flock can be seen by the fact that the greatest of imams, Muhammad (saw), was blessed with the miracle of being able to see through his thighs in both Ruku and Sadja. What use that miracle if he were not supposed to care for each and everyone of them even whilst he led them from the front.
But whilst a shepherd leads from the back and cares for the weakest as a means of caring for them all, an Imam leads from the front and the people play catchup. An Imam's job is to educate, to think about how to better the people's situations, to plan and then to mobilise the people to action by encouraging words and by, more importantly, example.
At the battle of Tabuk the Prophet (saw) mobilised his men to action against a threat from Rome. The Prophet (saw) lead from the front and arrived at the oasis first. Abu Dharr al Gifari (ra) narrates that he had a slow and old mount and he fell behind. The Prophet (saw) did not slow the army's march, but on arrival looked out across the dessert anxiously hoping that Abu Dharr (ra) would fulfil his obligation. And when he saw him walking through the dessert he was happy. Abu Dharr (ra) had realised that his mount would not carry him any further and dismounting let it go, knowing that it would find its way back to Medina. He continued on foot wishing to fulfil the command and follow the example of his Imam, and that during one of the hottest summers.
This is how an Imam acts, he consults, surmises, thinks and articulates about a position. And then he puts it into action and first with himself. He provides you with the boundaries to know what needs to be done and then leaves you to accomplish it. And then he looks out for you and aids you in it.
Most of our Imams do none of these things.
The Prophet (saw) said that we will get the leaders that we deserve. And yet an Imam leads and does not follow the people. This contradictory circle can only be squared when we realise that our leaders are not leaders, and when we cease to accept and honour
-those that cry on the pulpit,
-those that do not preface their words with meaningful action,
-those that do not lead by example,
-those that do not make their prime motive the betterment of the lot of their people,
-those that keep their heads in their books.
For those who keep their heads in their books they should remain in the scholastic classes but let them not aspire to being Imams of the People. For they are the bane of our World.
It is they who have failed the Prophet's (saw) nation miserably.
Why do I say that?
Because of what I have seen of the lack of mercy present in our Nation. Because of the lack of cleanliness on this city's streets. Granted five million people will create a lot of mess, but an Imam's job should be to help people on the ways of belief. And our Prophet (saw) instructed us that the least of it is picking up something from the way that people walk. Then what about providing receptacles to encourage people to dispose of their trash easily?
Such simple things can make a world of difference to everyone's experience.
When all of that has been said, Muslims are still one of the most generous and trustworthy people.
A Muslima had left her wallet in a taxi. The taxi driver only found it on arrival back in Jedda from Mecca. He drove all the way back to Mecca to fulfil his trust and refused a reward.
All of these good acts are not because of our Imams but in spite of them.
And in spite of them Mecca is the greatest of cities. Made great by what lies at its centre and then by the myriad noble people that come to go about it.
Later I will inshaAllah write about the Hajj in particular.
Shafeesthoughts.
At the centre of the World.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Tuesday, 29 October 2013
Wednesday, 9 October 2013
Islam a Religion of Peace? The development of Jihad
The development of Jihad; part 2.
Please read part1 first- find it ... how-can-islam-claim-to-be-religion-of-PEACE?
VICTORY
"VERILY, [O Muhammad,] We have laid open before you a manifest and clear victory" (S. Fath)
War is fought by men to fulfill specific purposes, that when achieved are called victorious.
The victory, termed by the God of the Qur'an in this verse as a clear and manifest one, was not achieved by War, nor the threat of War. Furthermore the following verse makes an example of it for all time, making it not a contextual victory but a resounding victory. A very real example of what Islam desires to this day.
That victory there refers to a Peace Treaty.
Specifically the treaty of Hudabiyyah that Muhammad (saw) entered into with Quraysh whilst all of his companions and helpers could only fathom the one-sidedness of it all. They saw from it only that the Muslims would garner further ill-treatment from Quraysh, their enemies of thirteen plus years, and yet Muhammad (saw) entered into it willingly with neither fear nor force brought to bear, and in order to secure Peace.
And it occurred when Muhammad (saw) ventured to make a peaceful pilgrimage to the Sacred City of Mecca. And from it stemmed a full year of Peace in the Arabian Peninsula until Quraysh broke armistice.
It is a remarkable story, so unbelievable in its detail as to make it absolutely convincingly true. And not just to the believer. *1 (the-coming-comforter-a-physical-proof!)
But what matters if you really want to understand Islam is not what, or how, other people interpret it but how the majority of well versed Muslim believers interpret it. *2 (What-are-cultural-truths?)
The claim that the Qur'an as a book promotes War, and is in essence evil, is based upon a non-contextual reading of its text and a cherry picking of its injunctions.
In fact such people are want to always accuse Muslims of hiding behind context.
However Muslims believe that the whole of the Qur'an is God's revelation sent down to Muhammad (saw) over a period of the 23 years of his mission.
Not only does that time span necessitate a contextual analysis but the Qur'an itself instructs us in that necessity. First by directly talking about those incidents during the Prophet's life and then by verses that refer to the primacy of seeking an understanding of its meaning. *3 (the-perfection-of-god's-favour-and-search-for-meaning.)
The CONTEXT.
In fact the theme of constancy and perseverance that underpins the Muslim conception of a fight against injustice; Jihad; starts within the first 13 years of the Meccan period.
And during that time the first Muslims bore their persecution with patience. Their poor and helpless were martyred whilst they could not, and did not raise a hand to stop that.
Muhammad (saw) reminded those that complained of their inability to help their brothers with the example of the people before them who had their skin scraped from their backs, and some who were ripped in two, all because they said ALLAH is One. A reference to the Nasarene before them.
This persecution did not affect them psychologically and we see the merit of their religion in the way that they treated the Qurayshi captives after the battle of Badr. *4 (The-quality-of-the-badr-ee)
For Islam taught the lessons of perseverance and patience well.
That it is not piety to not feel injustices bitter bite, but it is piety to recognise injustice, feel it's loss and then still continue to be just and true. And so the first Muslims suffered the persecution of their brothers and sisters, not in silence, but with hope. The hope that in the end they would be free to live their faith without fear.
Much of the further development of Jihad follows on from an understanding of the mission of Muhammad (saw). And like the great Messengers before him, his mission was manifold.
*5 (The-many-missions-of-jesus-(may-GOD-be-pleased-with-him)
"And thus have We revealed to you an Arabic Quran, that you may warn the mother city and those around it, and that you may give warning of the day of gathering together wherein is no doubt", a verse of the Qur'an that reveals three of the recipients of the message of Muhammad (saw).
The MOTHER CITY.
For he was sent to Quraysh, his people of Mecca, the mother of all cities, that belied him. And then to "those around it" being a reference to all the cities and people around Mecca and for whom the Mufassireen tell us is a reference to the whole of the World. And then the third referenced by GOD is in His reminding us that it is an Arabic Qur'an, is the Arab Nation, the Umiyoon, or unlettered people of the Arabian Peninsula. A people descended of Ismail, the son of Abraham, who had not received a messenger for themselves until that time. And for whom the Qur'an informs us that Abraham (as) supplicated that they be given one.
The import of the first mission can be seen in the fact that Muhammad (saw) delayed leaving Mecca until he had first gained permission from GOD, most High, for the emigration.
PERSECUTION
The persecution of the Muslims instead of abating with the thirteen long years of the Meccan period actually continued with equal vigour. And then God opened up the hearts of the people of another city, Yathrib. And after the two treaties of Aqaba were concluded the Muslims slowly and quietly emigrated, with Muhammad (saw) permission, to that peaceful oasis that later became known as The City, or Medina. In the year of grief, Muhammad (saw) suffered a two fold loss and his protection amongst Quraysh waivered. For before that time his grandfather, Abdul Muttalib, a great chief of Mecca kept him safe from the wiles of Quraysh and allowed him to continue the call, in safety, to ONE GOD. Once buried the mantle of chieftainship of Muhammad's tribe, Banu Hashim, passed to the Prophets uncle, Abu Lahab, so named because of his enmity and hatred towards Islam and his nephew. But no matter how much he might deride Muhammad (saw), he could not act openly against him because of the nature of Chieftaincy. His role in that position was one of protection of his tribe irrespective of how base they might descend. And furthermore Muhammad (saw) was of noble blood, being the orphan son of his younger brother Abdullah, of a hundred camels.
In the end Abu Lahab did consent for Quraysh to murder Muhammad (saw) on the proviso that each tribe be party to that heinous crime, so that he could then claim that he could not as he should, exact blood revenge against the whole of Quraysh.
And only with the plan of action did GOD release Muhammad (saw) from the first mission, and grant him permission to leave Mecca.
During that period the command to strive in the way GOD was one of by word, argument and example;
"So do not follow the unbelievers, and strive against them a mighty striving with it" (S. Furqan). The word for striving here is Jihad.
Examining the context above shows that this striving, or Jihad, was not one of against the self as is so often proposed nowadays by proponents who claim that an eschatological Sufism is the underlying thought within Islam.*6 (Was-there-ever-such-a-thing-as-islamic-sufism?)
Islam was eschatological and yet more importantly concerned with the here and now as a forerunner to that eventuality. It emphasised the unity of man whilst at the same time being confrontational in regards to the disparity it saw in the beliefs of men and their actions. It never was an inward path but always a means of ironing out the consequence of true belief, as opposed to the hypocrisy of false beliefs.
After the emigration to Medina the believers who had lost everything in that flight from oppression; their homes, livelihoods and sometimes even their families; were given permission to fight.
"Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them....." S. Hajj.
This is the last proof required to confirm that during the first 13 years of the nascent call to Islam in Mecca, the believers did not fight a physical Jihad, but a mental, psychological and confrontational "striving" against all that was wrong.
It also highlights the definition that God, most high, gives to war. For the Muslims referred to there had no standing army, and nor did they retaliate but still war was fought against them. Most definitely war occurs between two opposing sides, and this verse pertinently asks us as to how the Muslims opposed the Quraishi oppression; torture and vilification; they did so with fortitude, patience and a belief in the ultimacy of goodness (al-husna).
COMMUNITY
With the formation of that community at Medina, and the development of it into a distinct Nation (Ummah), Jihad became a struggle for the protection of that Nation and Community against exterior political forces. This was enacted by Muhammad (saw) in the Constitution of Medina which saw a universal protection extend to all Medinese irrespective of belief. And was emphasised in the Quranic injunctions that encouraged all to fight against oppression.
Surah Baqara, revealed within the early Medinan period, lays the foundation stone for the Islamic conception of what a Muslim Nation should look like:
"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors."
"Fight those who fight you" sounds nothing like an all out call to arms against everybody. The second verse in that series reads:
"And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith."
Contextually this refers to Mecca and to Quraish who threw the Muslims out of their homes. But obviously the injunction for fighting against oppression is made general by the verse that living under it is worse than death. This is not war-mongering but a very realistic political view that if oppression visits you then it is your duty to fight body and soul to remove it from yourselves and your people.
Rather than being a negative instruction, this is, when examined in detail, a call to primacy of freedom. That freedom is worth sacrificing for, and sacrificing the whole of you and all of your people, to that end is a need that must be. *7 (Ghandhi-jinna-and-the-pianist!)
Irrespective of how you read the second verse in this series, it is obviously an addendum to that first verse that defines war as being essentially defensive.
And then the next verses read:
"But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression."
This then gives the limits referred to in the first verse above, the injunction "But do not transgress the limits" for when they cease fighting, you too incline to Peace.
Some Mufassireen do equate disbelief with oppression but this is from a theological point if view.
*8 (The-fallacy-of-disbelief!)
However when we read the life of the Prophet (saw) we see clear examples of him extending the hand of Peace and concluding Peace Treaties with Arab and non-Arab tribes even whilst they still disbelieved in him. Muhammad (saw) is known by Muslims to be the walking Quran and it is his example that explains the Quran in all aspects including this one.
(narrative *9)
And that was also the case with the Treaty of Hudabiyyah mentioned at the beginning. An occurrence that happened well after the revelation of S. Baqara above.
Muhammad (saw) as a man, leader and Messenger of GOD never did break any treaty and was always want to give easy terms in the conclusion of those treaties.
As a Muslim we are commanded to follow the example of Muhammad (saw).
Following the Quraish breaching the armistice, of Hudabiyyah, Muhammad (saw) marched on Mecca. He did so, not in revenge for the thirteen years of persecution that his followers suffered under Quraysh, but because the emissaries of the tribe, that had allied itself to Medina and then had suffered by Quraysh indiscretion of their unmet obligations, demanded the justice of retribution. Muhammad (saw) did not immediately rally the banners of war and conquest, so much so that his chief Qurayshi adversary went to Medina to plead the case that Peace should continue. But the demand to fulfil the obligation of treaty carried greater weight.
Mecca was his home of 53 years, thirteen of them sorrowed by Quraish's rejection of the best of their sons. The centre of the Muslim Universe, at whose centre lies the Kaba, a pure house, raised by Abraham (as) of old for the worship of the One True GOD.
Muhammad (saw) entered Mecca peacefully. Neither did he ride a war stead, nor did he captain any men; but he rode Qaswa the camel that brought him to Medina nine years earlier. He entered Mecca with bowed head, and cleansed the courtyard of all idolatry and forgave those who had trespassed against him.
All of Arabia fell completely under the influence of Islam.
But whilst idolatry had vanished from Mecca, it still remained the centre of pilgrimage for the whole of the Arabian Peninsula and there the idolatrous tribes were still allowed to practice those rites.
For one by one they had all entered into treaties of Peace with Muhammad (saw) and Medina.
Peace ruled in Arabia once again. And Muhammad (saw) received deputations from people outside of Arabia, notably the Christian Arab tribes of Syria.
The VERSE OF THE SWORD.
And then GOD revealed At-Tauba.
A chapter of the Qur'an that lacks the customary dedication, known as the basmallah which reads: "In the name of GOD the most gracious, the most merciful".
This was a phenomenal event that even most Muslims to this day fail to contemplate. And is even left unexplained by most Seerah books.
It is a question that every student of the Prophet's (saw) life must and should ask: "Why is at-Tauba not prefaced with the BasmAllah?"
And it is a question that needs to be constantly revisited. *10.
One of the greatest reason for the lack of the BasmAllah is that by it GOD is emphasising that what followed, on from it, came directly from GOD and that Muhammad (saw) had no part in it.
Whilst everyone agrees that the BasmAllah is part of the Qur'an its prefixing of the Chapters is an indication that Muhammad (saw) spoke only what was revealed to him. That Muhammad (saw) was the proxy and GOD's representative on Earth.
Surah Tauba did something that Muhammad (saw) would never do, it signalled the end of treaties. And by the lack of that BasmAllah, GOD said this is from me directly. That HE who has absolute right over all things, directly broke all of their treaties.
When it was revealed Abu Bakr (as) was on his way to lead the Hajj at Mecca. Muhammad (saw) immediately sent Ali (ra) with the revelation that it might become known and declared to all Arabs. And he explained that his sending of Ali (ra) would be so that the people might know that the revelation had come from him.
Ali (ra) declared it to the people without the usual reminder of God's mercy. This incredible act meant that Muhammad (saw) was saved from compromising on his way (sunnah); that treaties once entered into must be honoured. Furthermore since it was Ali (ra) that declared it to the people the Christian application that "He shall not speak of himself" was maintained as being reserved for Muhammad (saw).
What followed were the verses of war. And the Arab tribes were given notice that all treaties and contracts with the Muslims would become null and void after a period of grace.
Contextually those verses refer to the third group of people to whom the Prophet (saw) was sent. And these were the Umiyoon, the unlettered Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula. We know this because the revelation itself specifies and talks directly to the tribes that were making pilgrimage to the Holy House.
Surah Tauba is after all an Arabic revelation to the Arab People of the Arabian Peninsula and NOT the Arab people of Sham or Egypt or elsewhere. And not to Muslims in general.
By it GOD sought to purify not just Mecca, but the whole of Arabia from idolatry.
The proof of this understanding is that whilst the treaties were broken with the Arab tribes, Muhammad (saw) maintained the treaties with the Arab tribes of Syria and no War was declared on them even after they failed to become Muslim, after the period of grace. There was no compulsion in religion for them.
The revelation of Tauba, of the Arabic Quran, was a direct challenge to the Arab Muslim tribes to cleanse Arabia of disbelief. Was this uncompromising view humanistic? No it was not.
However, it was to and for the Arab Nation to decide how to tackle that particular problem. They did so with eminence, fully backing the Islamic vision and thereby changed World history. And they are honoured allegorically in the heart of the Qur'an.
The importance in our understanding of the development of Jihad is that what followed on from the revelation of Tauba concerned the Arabian Peninsula only. That it was an Arabic revelation to the Arabian Peninsula's people only.
This was the understanding of all five of the great Imams of our religion.
That the normal rules of war that applied outside of the peninsula, and are espoused in Surah Baqara above, do not apply within that peninsula. And furthermore that this understanding and command is not for any non-peninsula Arab to act upon even that is in regard to the peninsula. Save only for those people ennobled by this direct message.
And this explains the following general verse of the Qur'an:
"Thus, have We made of you a justly balanced Nation, that ye might be witnesses over all the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves".
That the religion does not seek to overwhelm by force all other Nations. That the context of limitless war was bounded by its reference to the Arab tribes of the Arabian peninsula only.
And furthermore this was not the way of the one we were commanded to follow, Muhammad (saw) the Messenger of God, who forever will be blessed.
The WAY of MUHAMMAD (saw), and the THIRD GREATEST MISSION.
It was he (saw) who exactly one year after that declaration of war, and after all of the Arab tribes had formally entered Islam in Peace, reminded them on the great day of Hajj that...
"no Arab is superior to a non-Arab".
A hint that theirs was a duty sacred.
A universal message of Peace carried to the World by a people graced with the greatest of Messengers.
And a fulfilment of the third and greatest of the missions vested in Muhammad (saw), the Messenger of God, that he might warn all of the cities surrounding Mecca to the ends of the World.
And I bear witness that, by God's mighty grace, Muhammad (saw) has fulfilled that third and greatest of Missions and that I have believed in ALLAH t'ala, the One.
May God reward Muhammad (saw) and those who assisted him, and still do, in his task with untold blessings.
For there never was such a man, or such a time, Muhammad (saw) the proof of Merciful God. May he forever be blessed. *11 (A-celebration-of-prophet-in-poetry)
Shafees.
Disclaimer: this is my opinion and I am no Scholar. I write solely to stimulate your thought and then for you to investigate things for yourself and then to ask of Scholars.
Nor do I write to spoon feed.
Nor is this an explanation, or a justification, of what is sometimes wrongly presented as Jihad in this day.
Jihad ennobles you, and if it does not then it is not Jihad.
NOTES:
*1 -An appreciation of the apparent /gross contradiction present within the narrative (which can be explained) only serves as a proof of its authenticity. This also applies to the live of Jesus (as), the Messenger of God, see here:
The Coming Comforter; a Physical Proof
*2-
What are cultural truths and how can we justify them? Islam fulfils all of those requirements when it is considered that it was opposed from inception, and despite its opposition by the whole of Arabia, won through. The text of Islam, the Qur'an, details that opposition with clarity. And whilst today's truth might be at odds with the then Islamic truth it is not our interpretation of those truths that is the real yardstick in such matters.
See here for an explanation:
Cultural TRUTHS
*3- The proof that the life of the Messenger of GOD, Muhammad (saw), as being instrumental for understanding the Quran is found when we consider the verse "This day I have perfected my favour to you, o Mankind, and chosen for you Islam as your religion". See here for a fuller explanation:
The Perfection of GOD's Favour
*4 please see this blog for a fuller explanation of what happened on that day.
Badr-ee
*5 see here for a complex appreciation of the message of Jesus (as):
The many missions of JESUS (as).
*6 see here for a refutation of Sufism being at all considered Islamic:
Was there ever such a thing as ISLAMIC SUFISM
And here to appreciate the Worldly nature of the Islamic Message:
Heaven and EARTH
And
There are no gods
*7 read to the end of the following blog to get to victimization:
Gandhi-jii Jinnah and the Pianist
*8
The Fallacy of Polytheism and Atheism
*9 Intervening in the narrative of this blog are two fundamentally important events 1- The Battle of Uhud which reinforced the message of patience for a Muslim community exalted by belief, and furthermore that the victory is not for us, but for GOD. And we fight not to win but to be true. The interpretation of Uhud is fundamental for anyone who wants to know what Jihad is. 2- The establishment of community led to the development of a second hidden enemy who could not be fought but for whom the Muslims had to be constantly vigilant about, these were the hypocrites. How Muhammad (saw) dealt with these people is another lesson in the patient perseverance of what Jihad means.
These two aspects deserve a second blog.
*10 For the BasmAllah is potentially the greatest part of the religion that marks out Islam as being the modern religion, see the latter part of this blog:
The Fallacy of Polytheism and Atheism
*11 The life of the greatest of men in poetry:
A Celebration of the Prophet.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Please read part1 first- find it ... how-can-islam-claim-to-be-religion-of-PEACE?
VICTORY
"VERILY, [O Muhammad,] We have laid open before you a manifest and clear victory" (S. Fath)
War is fought by men to fulfill specific purposes, that when achieved are called victorious.
The victory, termed by the God of the Qur'an in this verse as a clear and manifest one, was not achieved by War, nor the threat of War. Furthermore the following verse makes an example of it for all time, making it not a contextual victory but a resounding victory. A very real example of what Islam desires to this day.
That victory there refers to a Peace Treaty.
Specifically the treaty of Hudabiyyah that Muhammad (saw) entered into with Quraysh whilst all of his companions and helpers could only fathom the one-sidedness of it all. They saw from it only that the Muslims would garner further ill-treatment from Quraysh, their enemies of thirteen plus years, and yet Muhammad (saw) entered into it willingly with neither fear nor force brought to bear, and in order to secure Peace.
And it occurred when Muhammad (saw) ventured to make a peaceful pilgrimage to the Sacred City of Mecca. And from it stemmed a full year of Peace in the Arabian Peninsula until Quraysh broke armistice.
It is a remarkable story, so unbelievable in its detail as to make it absolutely convincingly true. And not just to the believer. *1 (the-coming-comforter-a-physical-proof!)
But what matters if you really want to understand Islam is not what, or how, other people interpret it but how the majority of well versed Muslim believers interpret it. *2 (What-are-cultural-truths?)
The claim that the Qur'an as a book promotes War, and is in essence evil, is based upon a non-contextual reading of its text and a cherry picking of its injunctions.
In fact such people are want to always accuse Muslims of hiding behind context.
However Muslims believe that the whole of the Qur'an is God's revelation sent down to Muhammad (saw) over a period of the 23 years of his mission.
Not only does that time span necessitate a contextual analysis but the Qur'an itself instructs us in that necessity. First by directly talking about those incidents during the Prophet's life and then by verses that refer to the primacy of seeking an understanding of its meaning. *3 (the-perfection-of-god's-favour-and-search-for-meaning.)
The CONTEXT.
In fact the theme of constancy and perseverance that underpins the Muslim conception of a fight against injustice; Jihad; starts within the first 13 years of the Meccan period.
And during that time the first Muslims bore their persecution with patience. Their poor and helpless were martyred whilst they could not, and did not raise a hand to stop that.
Muhammad (saw) reminded those that complained of their inability to help their brothers with the example of the people before them who had their skin scraped from their backs, and some who were ripped in two, all because they said ALLAH is One. A reference to the Nasarene before them.
This persecution did not affect them psychologically and we see the merit of their religion in the way that they treated the Qurayshi captives after the battle of Badr. *4 (The-quality-of-the-badr-ee)
For Islam taught the lessons of perseverance and patience well.
That it is not piety to not feel injustices bitter bite, but it is piety to recognise injustice, feel it's loss and then still continue to be just and true. And so the first Muslims suffered the persecution of their brothers and sisters, not in silence, but with hope. The hope that in the end they would be free to live their faith without fear.
Much of the further development of Jihad follows on from an understanding of the mission of Muhammad (saw). And like the great Messengers before him, his mission was manifold.
*5 (The-many-missions-of-jesus-(may-GOD-be-pleased-with-him)
"And thus have We revealed to you an Arabic Quran, that you may warn the mother city and those around it, and that you may give warning of the day of gathering together wherein is no doubt", a verse of the Qur'an that reveals three of the recipients of the message of Muhammad (saw).
The MOTHER CITY.
For he was sent to Quraysh, his people of Mecca, the mother of all cities, that belied him. And then to "those around it" being a reference to all the cities and people around Mecca and for whom the Mufassireen tell us is a reference to the whole of the World. And then the third referenced by GOD is in His reminding us that it is an Arabic Qur'an, is the Arab Nation, the Umiyoon, or unlettered people of the Arabian Peninsula. A people descended of Ismail, the son of Abraham, who had not received a messenger for themselves until that time. And for whom the Qur'an informs us that Abraham (as) supplicated that they be given one.
The import of the first mission can be seen in the fact that Muhammad (saw) delayed leaving Mecca until he had first gained permission from GOD, most High, for the emigration.
PERSECUTION
The persecution of the Muslims instead of abating with the thirteen long years of the Meccan period actually continued with equal vigour. And then God opened up the hearts of the people of another city, Yathrib. And after the two treaties of Aqaba were concluded the Muslims slowly and quietly emigrated, with Muhammad (saw) permission, to that peaceful oasis that later became known as The City, or Medina. In the year of grief, Muhammad (saw) suffered a two fold loss and his protection amongst Quraysh waivered. For before that time his grandfather, Abdul Muttalib, a great chief of Mecca kept him safe from the wiles of Quraysh and allowed him to continue the call, in safety, to ONE GOD. Once buried the mantle of chieftainship of Muhammad's tribe, Banu Hashim, passed to the Prophets uncle, Abu Lahab, so named because of his enmity and hatred towards Islam and his nephew. But no matter how much he might deride Muhammad (saw), he could not act openly against him because of the nature of Chieftaincy. His role in that position was one of protection of his tribe irrespective of how base they might descend. And furthermore Muhammad (saw) was of noble blood, being the orphan son of his younger brother Abdullah, of a hundred camels.
In the end Abu Lahab did consent for Quraysh to murder Muhammad (saw) on the proviso that each tribe be party to that heinous crime, so that he could then claim that he could not as he should, exact blood revenge against the whole of Quraysh.
And only with the plan of action did GOD release Muhammad (saw) from the first mission, and grant him permission to leave Mecca.
During that period the command to strive in the way GOD was one of by word, argument and example;
"So do not follow the unbelievers, and strive against them a mighty striving with it" (S. Furqan). The word for striving here is Jihad.
Examining the context above shows that this striving, or Jihad, was not one of against the self as is so often proposed nowadays by proponents who claim that an eschatological Sufism is the underlying thought within Islam.*6 (Was-there-ever-such-a-thing-as-islamic-sufism?)
Islam was eschatological and yet more importantly concerned with the here and now as a forerunner to that eventuality. It emphasised the unity of man whilst at the same time being confrontational in regards to the disparity it saw in the beliefs of men and their actions. It never was an inward path but always a means of ironing out the consequence of true belief, as opposed to the hypocrisy of false beliefs.
After the emigration to Medina the believers who had lost everything in that flight from oppression; their homes, livelihoods and sometimes even their families; were given permission to fight.
"Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them....." S. Hajj.
This is the last proof required to confirm that during the first 13 years of the nascent call to Islam in Mecca, the believers did not fight a physical Jihad, but a mental, psychological and confrontational "striving" against all that was wrong.
It also highlights the definition that God, most high, gives to war. For the Muslims referred to there had no standing army, and nor did they retaliate but still war was fought against them. Most definitely war occurs between two opposing sides, and this verse pertinently asks us as to how the Muslims opposed the Quraishi oppression; torture and vilification; they did so with fortitude, patience and a belief in the ultimacy of goodness (al-husna).
COMMUNITY
With the formation of that community at Medina, and the development of it into a distinct Nation (Ummah), Jihad became a struggle for the protection of that Nation and Community against exterior political forces. This was enacted by Muhammad (saw) in the Constitution of Medina which saw a universal protection extend to all Medinese irrespective of belief. And was emphasised in the Quranic injunctions that encouraged all to fight against oppression.
Surah Baqara, revealed within the early Medinan period, lays the foundation stone for the Islamic conception of what a Muslim Nation should look like:
"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors."
"Fight those who fight you" sounds nothing like an all out call to arms against everybody. The second verse in that series reads:
"And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith."
Contextually this refers to Mecca and to Quraish who threw the Muslims out of their homes. But obviously the injunction for fighting against oppression is made general by the verse that living under it is worse than death. This is not war-mongering but a very realistic political view that if oppression visits you then it is your duty to fight body and soul to remove it from yourselves and your people.
Rather than being a negative instruction, this is, when examined in detail, a call to primacy of freedom. That freedom is worth sacrificing for, and sacrificing the whole of you and all of your people, to that end is a need that must be. *7 (Ghandhi-jinna-and-the-pianist!)
Irrespective of how you read the second verse in this series, it is obviously an addendum to that first verse that defines war as being essentially defensive.
And then the next verses read:
"But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression."
This then gives the limits referred to in the first verse above, the injunction "But do not transgress the limits" for when they cease fighting, you too incline to Peace.
Some Mufassireen do equate disbelief with oppression but this is from a theological point if view.
*8 (The-fallacy-of-disbelief!)
However when we read the life of the Prophet (saw) we see clear examples of him extending the hand of Peace and concluding Peace Treaties with Arab and non-Arab tribes even whilst they still disbelieved in him. Muhammad (saw) is known by Muslims to be the walking Quran and it is his example that explains the Quran in all aspects including this one.
(narrative *9)
And that was also the case with the Treaty of Hudabiyyah mentioned at the beginning. An occurrence that happened well after the revelation of S. Baqara above.
Muhammad (saw) as a man, leader and Messenger of GOD never did break any treaty and was always want to give easy terms in the conclusion of those treaties.
As a Muslim we are commanded to follow the example of Muhammad (saw).
Following the Quraish breaching the armistice, of Hudabiyyah, Muhammad (saw) marched on Mecca. He did so, not in revenge for the thirteen years of persecution that his followers suffered under Quraysh, but because the emissaries of the tribe, that had allied itself to Medina and then had suffered by Quraysh indiscretion of their unmet obligations, demanded the justice of retribution. Muhammad (saw) did not immediately rally the banners of war and conquest, so much so that his chief Qurayshi adversary went to Medina to plead the case that Peace should continue. But the demand to fulfil the obligation of treaty carried greater weight.
Mecca was his home of 53 years, thirteen of them sorrowed by Quraish's rejection of the best of their sons. The centre of the Muslim Universe, at whose centre lies the Kaba, a pure house, raised by Abraham (as) of old for the worship of the One True GOD.
Muhammad (saw) entered Mecca peacefully. Neither did he ride a war stead, nor did he captain any men; but he rode Qaswa the camel that brought him to Medina nine years earlier. He entered Mecca with bowed head, and cleansed the courtyard of all idolatry and forgave those who had trespassed against him.
All of Arabia fell completely under the influence of Islam.
But whilst idolatry had vanished from Mecca, it still remained the centre of pilgrimage for the whole of the Arabian Peninsula and there the idolatrous tribes were still allowed to practice those rites.
For one by one they had all entered into treaties of Peace with Muhammad (saw) and Medina.
Peace ruled in Arabia once again. And Muhammad (saw) received deputations from people outside of Arabia, notably the Christian Arab tribes of Syria.
The VERSE OF THE SWORD.
And then GOD revealed At-Tauba.
A chapter of the Qur'an that lacks the customary dedication, known as the basmallah which reads: "In the name of GOD the most gracious, the most merciful".
This was a phenomenal event that even most Muslims to this day fail to contemplate. And is even left unexplained by most Seerah books.
It is a question that every student of the Prophet's (saw) life must and should ask: "Why is at-Tauba not prefaced with the BasmAllah?"
And it is a question that needs to be constantly revisited. *10.
One of the greatest reason for the lack of the BasmAllah is that by it GOD is emphasising that what followed, on from it, came directly from GOD and that Muhammad (saw) had no part in it.
Whilst everyone agrees that the BasmAllah is part of the Qur'an its prefixing of the Chapters is an indication that Muhammad (saw) spoke only what was revealed to him. That Muhammad (saw) was the proxy and GOD's representative on Earth.
Surah Tauba did something that Muhammad (saw) would never do, it signalled the end of treaties. And by the lack of that BasmAllah, GOD said this is from me directly. That HE who has absolute right over all things, directly broke all of their treaties.
When it was revealed Abu Bakr (as) was on his way to lead the Hajj at Mecca. Muhammad (saw) immediately sent Ali (ra) with the revelation that it might become known and declared to all Arabs. And he explained that his sending of Ali (ra) would be so that the people might know that the revelation had come from him.
Ali (ra) declared it to the people without the usual reminder of God's mercy. This incredible act meant that Muhammad (saw) was saved from compromising on his way (sunnah); that treaties once entered into must be honoured. Furthermore since it was Ali (ra) that declared it to the people the Christian application that "He shall not speak of himself" was maintained as being reserved for Muhammad (saw).
What followed were the verses of war. And the Arab tribes were given notice that all treaties and contracts with the Muslims would become null and void after a period of grace.
Contextually those verses refer to the third group of people to whom the Prophet (saw) was sent. And these were the Umiyoon, the unlettered Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula. We know this because the revelation itself specifies and talks directly to the tribes that were making pilgrimage to the Holy House.
Surah Tauba is after all an Arabic revelation to the Arab People of the Arabian Peninsula and NOT the Arab people of Sham or Egypt or elsewhere. And not to Muslims in general.
By it GOD sought to purify not just Mecca, but the whole of Arabia from idolatry.
The proof of this understanding is that whilst the treaties were broken with the Arab tribes, Muhammad (saw) maintained the treaties with the Arab tribes of Syria and no War was declared on them even after they failed to become Muslim, after the period of grace. There was no compulsion in religion for them.
The revelation of Tauba, of the Arabic Quran, was a direct challenge to the Arab Muslim tribes to cleanse Arabia of disbelief. Was this uncompromising view humanistic? No it was not.
However, it was to and for the Arab Nation to decide how to tackle that particular problem. They did so with eminence, fully backing the Islamic vision and thereby changed World history. And they are honoured allegorically in the heart of the Qur'an.
The importance in our understanding of the development of Jihad is that what followed on from the revelation of Tauba concerned the Arabian Peninsula only. That it was an Arabic revelation to the Arabian Peninsula's people only.
This was the understanding of all five of the great Imams of our religion.
That the normal rules of war that applied outside of the peninsula, and are espoused in Surah Baqara above, do not apply within that peninsula. And furthermore that this understanding and command is not for any non-peninsula Arab to act upon even that is in regard to the peninsula. Save only for those people ennobled by this direct message.
And this explains the following general verse of the Qur'an:
"Thus, have We made of you a justly balanced Nation, that ye might be witnesses over all the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves".
That the religion does not seek to overwhelm by force all other Nations. That the context of limitless war was bounded by its reference to the Arab tribes of the Arabian peninsula only.
And furthermore this was not the way of the one we were commanded to follow, Muhammad (saw) the Messenger of God, who forever will be blessed.
The WAY of MUHAMMAD (saw), and the THIRD GREATEST MISSION.
It was he (saw) who exactly one year after that declaration of war, and after all of the Arab tribes had formally entered Islam in Peace, reminded them on the great day of Hajj that...
"no Arab is superior to a non-Arab".
A hint that theirs was a duty sacred.
A universal message of Peace carried to the World by a people graced with the greatest of Messengers.
And a fulfilment of the third and greatest of the missions vested in Muhammad (saw), the Messenger of God, that he might warn all of the cities surrounding Mecca to the ends of the World.
And I bear witness that, by God's mighty grace, Muhammad (saw) has fulfilled that third and greatest of Missions and that I have believed in ALLAH t'ala, the One.
May God reward Muhammad (saw) and those who assisted him, and still do, in his task with untold blessings.
For there never was such a man, or such a time, Muhammad (saw) the proof of Merciful God. May he forever be blessed. *11 (A-celebration-of-prophet-in-poetry)
Shafees.
Disclaimer: this is my opinion and I am no Scholar. I write solely to stimulate your thought and then for you to investigate things for yourself and then to ask of Scholars.
Nor do I write to spoon feed.
Nor is this an explanation, or a justification, of what is sometimes wrongly presented as Jihad in this day.
Jihad ennobles you, and if it does not then it is not Jihad.
NOTES:
*1 -An appreciation of the apparent /gross contradiction present within the narrative (which can be explained) only serves as a proof of its authenticity. This also applies to the live of Jesus (as), the Messenger of God, see here:
The Coming Comforter; a Physical Proof
*2-
What are cultural truths and how can we justify them? Islam fulfils all of those requirements when it is considered that it was opposed from inception, and despite its opposition by the whole of Arabia, won through. The text of Islam, the Qur'an, details that opposition with clarity. And whilst today's truth might be at odds with the then Islamic truth it is not our interpretation of those truths that is the real yardstick in such matters.
See here for an explanation:
Cultural TRUTHS
*3- The proof that the life of the Messenger of GOD, Muhammad (saw), as being instrumental for understanding the Quran is found when we consider the verse "This day I have perfected my favour to you, o Mankind, and chosen for you Islam as your religion". See here for a fuller explanation:
The Perfection of GOD's Favour
*4 please see this blog for a fuller explanation of what happened on that day.
Badr-ee
*5 see here for a complex appreciation of the message of Jesus (as):
The many missions of JESUS (as).
*6 see here for a refutation of Sufism being at all considered Islamic:
Was there ever such a thing as ISLAMIC SUFISM
And here to appreciate the Worldly nature of the Islamic Message:
Heaven and EARTH
And
There are no gods
*7 read to the end of the following blog to get to victimization:
Gandhi-jii Jinnah and the Pianist
*8
The Fallacy of Polytheism and Atheism
*9 Intervening in the narrative of this blog are two fundamentally important events 1- The Battle of Uhud which reinforced the message of patience for a Muslim community exalted by belief, and furthermore that the victory is not for us, but for GOD. And we fight not to win but to be true. The interpretation of Uhud is fundamental for anyone who wants to know what Jihad is. 2- The establishment of community led to the development of a second hidden enemy who could not be fought but for whom the Muslims had to be constantly vigilant about, these were the hypocrites. How Muhammad (saw) dealt with these people is another lesson in the patient perseverance of what Jihad means.
These two aspects deserve a second blog.
*10 For the BasmAllah is potentially the greatest part of the religion that marks out Islam as being the modern religion, see the latter part of this blog:
The Fallacy of Polytheism and Atheism
*11 The life of the greatest of men in poetry:
A Celebration of the Prophet.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Sunday, 18 August 2013
Mombasa, a poem
Mombasa.
What can I say,
Your beaches golden as hay.
Corny.
Brazen by equatorial sun,
Unspoilt by the mess of the world.
Desolate from the Faranjee that come.
Who stay holed up by the pool bar.
Missive of the best of the World.
Golden beaches, palm shade, sun.
Warm Indian Ocean waters,
drenching your shores,
quenching our desire for more.
Sated, peaceful and calm.
Ready for the mess of the world.
But stay you aloof from it all.
Stay you, unspoilt.
Till I once again come.
Hustle, bustle.
Mombasa Town.
Kahwa on a street stall.
Narrow lanes,
Hidden industry.
Red sweet sticky halwa.
Birazee, mandazi too.
What can I say.
O Mombasa, I love you xxx.
Stay you, unspoilt.
Till I once again come.
END.
Written in the departures lounge of Mombasa's International Airport.
On request by my brother in law, Osman Varvani, for a poem about us.
We are Mombasa,
Mombasa is us.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
What can I say,
Your beaches golden as hay.
Corny.
Brazen by equatorial sun,
Unspoilt by the mess of the world.
Desolate from the Faranjee that come.
Who stay holed up by the pool bar.
Missive of the best of the World.
Golden beaches, palm shade, sun.
Warm Indian Ocean waters,
drenching your shores,
quenching our desire for more.
Sated, peaceful and calm.
Ready for the mess of the world.
But stay you aloof from it all.
Stay you, unspoilt.
Till I once again come.
Hustle, bustle.
Mombasa Town.
Kahwa on a street stall.
Narrow lanes,
Hidden industry.
Red sweet sticky halwa.
Birazee, mandazi too.
What can I say.
O Mombasa, I love you xxx.
Stay you, unspoilt.
Till I once again come.
END.
Written in the departures lounge of Mombasa's International Airport.
On request by my brother in law, Osman Varvani, for a poem about us.
We are Mombasa,
Mombasa is us.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Location:Bamburi
Sunday, 11 August 2013
Why the Greeks didn't do Science
The Greeks, for all their mental acumen and veritable gymnastics, never did Science!
Theirs was confined to a philosophical appreciation of the World. For whilst the story of Science, in the Western Hemisphere, nearly always starts with Galileo gazing up at the Heavens and finding there something that just neatly fit with his mathematical theory.
The Greeks had looked there long before that and even formulated ideas that related to the World at large, and not just the Heavens above.
Their elemental philosophy was extremely powerful at explaining things. But the difference between our Science and theirs is not in explanatory power, but in ours being generative of still more questions and frontiers of endeavour.
Some may argue that Archimedes with his Eureka moment was the birth of Science as we know it. But the Archimedial principle of buoyancy was based upon the original four element theory. And more importantly whilst it explained, it did not generate.
For the Greeks held that the elements were four, with each seeking its natural place: AIR. FIRE. WATER. EARTH.
Earth sought earth, and things fell to the ground.
Water sought water, with rivers flowing into the sea.
Air sought air, with bubbles rising through fluids.
Fire sought the ephemeral fire of the Heavens, both causing devastation here on Earth and dissipating above.
And Archimedes's EUREKA was borne of his realisation that that seeking could also be a negative force of rejection. That the buoyancy that you experienced in a bath was a nett result of the water trying to reject you from its medium.
A perfect explanation if there ever was one.
Was it the power of this explanatory idea that held them back from further investigation?
Or was it that they lacked some other basic fundamental conception of the World?
Some have argued that they were too comfortable to do Science, too rich and too fat, but that belies the truth of their fragmentary states and politics, and does no justice to their brilliance.
Their explanatorily powerful elemental idea did fail them in one respect. For they held that a flying arrow, flew straight and then fell vertically once out of sight.
Indeed the Science of warfare should have been a pressing concern of theirs given their continually fluxing political situation. And even the Archimedean principle would have been employed to great effect in their construction of sea-faring vessels.
So what gave?
They would have noticed the imperfect parabolas of slower arrows. Then why not extrapolate from known to unknown as is the normal basis for all rational thought? From the parabolas that they saw to the parabolas that were out of sight?
But instead they resorted to their elemental theory and furthermore claimed a special case: that the slower arrows were imperfect, and the faster arrows perfect and so flew till their flying power was expended and then fell vertically.
The erroneousity of this may be easily apparent to us here and now, but imagining yourself within the powerful explanatory world view of the Greek elements and it is not so.
It would take something far stronger than the minds of brilliant men to give us Modern Science.
It took a conviction of a belief in the Universality of GOD given laws and their consistency.
And then an insistence that there are things worth researching and looking in to.
A revelation from GOD, the most High,
"and NO change will you find in the Sunnat-Ullah (Ways of GOD)".
"He Who created the seven heavens one above another: No want of proportion wilt thou see in the Creation of (Allah) Most Gracious. So turn thy vision again: seest thou any flaw?
Again turn thy vision a second time: (thy) vision will come back to thee dull and discomfited, in a state worn out."
From an Arabic Qu'ran that launched the whole of mankind on a path towards self betterment.
A fact little known.
Of a people now disdained.
END
Written on the flight out of Gatwick, over Africa onward to Mombasa.
Thank you Thompson Airlines for your hospitality.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Theirs was confined to a philosophical appreciation of the World. For whilst the story of Science, in the Western Hemisphere, nearly always starts with Galileo gazing up at the Heavens and finding there something that just neatly fit with his mathematical theory.
The Greeks had looked there long before that and even formulated ideas that related to the World at large, and not just the Heavens above.
Their elemental philosophy was extremely powerful at explaining things. But the difference between our Science and theirs is not in explanatory power, but in ours being generative of still more questions and frontiers of endeavour.
Some may argue that Archimedes with his Eureka moment was the birth of Science as we know it. But the Archimedial principle of buoyancy was based upon the original four element theory. And more importantly whilst it explained, it did not generate.
For the Greeks held that the elements were four, with each seeking its natural place: AIR. FIRE. WATER. EARTH.
Earth sought earth, and things fell to the ground.
Water sought water, with rivers flowing into the sea.
Air sought air, with bubbles rising through fluids.
Fire sought the ephemeral fire of the Heavens, both causing devastation here on Earth and dissipating above.
And Archimedes's EUREKA was borne of his realisation that that seeking could also be a negative force of rejection. That the buoyancy that you experienced in a bath was a nett result of the water trying to reject you from its medium.
A perfect explanation if there ever was one.
Was it the power of this explanatory idea that held them back from further investigation?
Or was it that they lacked some other basic fundamental conception of the World?
Some have argued that they were too comfortable to do Science, too rich and too fat, but that belies the truth of their fragmentary states and politics, and does no justice to their brilliance.
Their explanatorily powerful elemental idea did fail them in one respect. For they held that a flying arrow, flew straight and then fell vertically once out of sight.
Indeed the Science of warfare should have been a pressing concern of theirs given their continually fluxing political situation. And even the Archimedean principle would have been employed to great effect in their construction of sea-faring vessels.
So what gave?
They would have noticed the imperfect parabolas of slower arrows. Then why not extrapolate from known to unknown as is the normal basis for all rational thought? From the parabolas that they saw to the parabolas that were out of sight?
But instead they resorted to their elemental theory and furthermore claimed a special case: that the slower arrows were imperfect, and the faster arrows perfect and so flew till their flying power was expended and then fell vertically.
The erroneousity of this may be easily apparent to us here and now, but imagining yourself within the powerful explanatory world view of the Greek elements and it is not so.
It would take something far stronger than the minds of brilliant men to give us Modern Science.
It took a conviction of a belief in the Universality of GOD given laws and their consistency.
And then an insistence that there are things worth researching and looking in to.
A revelation from GOD, the most High,
"and NO change will you find in the Sunnat-Ullah (Ways of GOD)".
"He Who created the seven heavens one above another: No want of proportion wilt thou see in the Creation of (Allah) Most Gracious. So turn thy vision again: seest thou any flaw?
Again turn thy vision a second time: (thy) vision will come back to thee dull and discomfited, in a state worn out."
From an Arabic Qu'ran that launched the whole of mankind on a path towards self betterment.
A fact little known.
Of a people now disdained.
END
Written on the flight out of Gatwick, over Africa onward to Mombasa.
Thank you Thompson Airlines for your hospitality.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Location:Mombasa
Tuesday, 23 July 2013
Does Belief Dumb Down?
Does BELIEF dumb down?
This questions hangs on two others.
On the one hand, belief at its most basic is about discernment, and the classification of the World on the basis of arbitrary terminology such as good and bad, right and wrong. But it is that judgement call, however arbitrary, that forces the Believer to think.
Furthermore morality, which is the prime concern of Believers, is often framed as judgements based on consequence. Consequence is a distant subject for thought, dealing both with far reaching ramifications and futures. These are not easy subjects to converse on, let alone present arguments about.
Which after all is what the Believer has to do both for himself and for his fellows. For when you make that judgment call, you invite the contrary both in thought and deed, both in yourself and others. For that is the nature of man, who after all is but a child of Adam. And then once invited, you must muster argument to justify yourself.
And on the other hand belief at its most basic is opposed to ignorance. For a believer "knows" and trusts his belief. Whilst the admittance of ignorance is certainly a motor for the pursuit of knowledge, belief does not readily lend itself to that pursuit there.
But it is the field within which belief operates there that explains the dynamic between these two poles.
For belief as regards the Muslim nation is clearly defined as being of six parts, collected into three themes. These are GOD, His Oneness and attributes, the communication of knowledge of Him, and His Ways, from Himself to ourselves and then our ultimate return back to Him. They relate to things which are invisible, and hence immune to reasonable question.
And so whilst these are taken as a given, by the believer, they leave open the question of how those beliefs impact on our everyday concerns. And whilst a believer might muster arguments in regard to the moral consequence of action using his or her beliefs, these as a rule do not preclude him/her from further examination of those questions. And in some cases they only provide the bedrock for the further examination of consequence.
So for example for a materialist person all research using embryos might be just Science doing what Science does, but for the believer such questions might hinge on the cases where such research is desirable, permissible and then plain wrong.
The thought processes of such a believer are therefore the more complex than the equivalent materialist.
And since the believer might elucidate cases, in those cases each would need their own justification. A more complex process and definitely not a dumbing down.
Isn't this a far superior version of rational behaviour that what masquerades as such in our time: the championship of freedom of expression when it is just plain stupid. Much of that that masquerades as rational is just that, the lack of discernment and the championship of the plain. Even down to the plain silly notion that there is no division between life and non-life, consciousness and dumbness.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
This questions hangs on two others.
On the one hand, belief at its most basic is about discernment, and the classification of the World on the basis of arbitrary terminology such as good and bad, right and wrong. But it is that judgement call, however arbitrary, that forces the Believer to think.
Furthermore morality, which is the prime concern of Believers, is often framed as judgements based on consequence. Consequence is a distant subject for thought, dealing both with far reaching ramifications and futures. These are not easy subjects to converse on, let alone present arguments about.
Which after all is what the Believer has to do both for himself and for his fellows. For when you make that judgment call, you invite the contrary both in thought and deed, both in yourself and others. For that is the nature of man, who after all is but a child of Adam. And then once invited, you must muster argument to justify yourself.
And on the other hand belief at its most basic is opposed to ignorance. For a believer "knows" and trusts his belief. Whilst the admittance of ignorance is certainly a motor for the pursuit of knowledge, belief does not readily lend itself to that pursuit there.
But it is the field within which belief operates there that explains the dynamic between these two poles.
For belief as regards the Muslim nation is clearly defined as being of six parts, collected into three themes. These are GOD, His Oneness and attributes, the communication of knowledge of Him, and His Ways, from Himself to ourselves and then our ultimate return back to Him. They relate to things which are invisible, and hence immune to reasonable question.
And so whilst these are taken as a given, by the believer, they leave open the question of how those beliefs impact on our everyday concerns. And whilst a believer might muster arguments in regard to the moral consequence of action using his or her beliefs, these as a rule do not preclude him/her from further examination of those questions. And in some cases they only provide the bedrock for the further examination of consequence.
So for example for a materialist person all research using embryos might be just Science doing what Science does, but for the believer such questions might hinge on the cases where such research is desirable, permissible and then plain wrong.
The thought processes of such a believer are therefore the more complex than the equivalent materialist.
And since the believer might elucidate cases, in those cases each would need their own justification. A more complex process and definitely not a dumbing down.
Isn't this a far superior version of rational behaviour that what masquerades as such in our time: the championship of freedom of expression when it is just plain stupid. Much of that that masquerades as rational is just that, the lack of discernment and the championship of the plain. Even down to the plain silly notion that there is no division between life and non-life, consciousness and dumbness.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Location:Bromley
Wednesday, 17 July 2013
Why I choose ISLAM
It is a daily choice to be a Submitter. Not least because of the daily vilification that we have to bear courtesy of our main stream media.
But possibly most when we are faced with justifying our belief, to ourselves, when we come into contact with our own who have forsaken theirs. These call themselves Muslims in a cultural tome mimicking our cousin-brothers; the People of the Book; being the Yuhood and the Nasara.
Well today my belief was shaken in that way and not by the hardship of Ramadhan's long London fasts; lasting a full eighteen plus hours in searing 27 degrees without hydrating fluids; nor by some arrogant rationalist that could not see past the end of his nose, but by a young man who claimed to be Muslim and yet paradoxically did not know, and even shied away, from the defining words of our Shahadah.
But then I remembered that this Islam of mine is a choice; a choice I choose to make. A choice that my religion emphasises to me at the two corners of each day, with the Sunnahs of Fajr and Maghrib where by convention we recite individually Kafiroon followed by Ikhlas in the two circuits of prayer.
And I make that choice with good reason, for I believe in the ascendency and primacy of hope.
That there is MORE.
And that such a belief can have a profound effect on the behaviour of men.
For when men allow fear to reign their psyche look what happens; "They ended up focusing on just those last few seconds and minutes of the struggle, and did George Zimmerman fear for his life? And that's really what it boiled down to for them".
The jury in their negatively fuelled stupidity focused on FEAR. Whether or not Tray Martin was to be feared never entered into their deliberations. A travesty of a judgement that did no truth to the facts and yielded justice to injustice.
And this is one solitary example of what effect fear, or the lack of hope, can have on mans behaviour.
It is the hope that there is MORE that makes me a better person;
More trusting
More generous
More truthful and kind and in the end
More Happy.
And so I choose Islam.
And I believe.
And I submit to GOD in the hope of His grace and mercy.
And I choose Islam because it provides me with a codex of rituals that are abundantly graceful and accessible. That give structure to my daily life and enable me to find both solace and meaning. And I am not ashamed of that.
And I choose Islam because it is not hidden nor shrouded in mystery, so much so that those who make it their duty to destroy it have full access to its sources. But they cannot because they fail to see its heart.
And I choose Islam because no matter what, there can be no denying Muhammed (saw). That he changed the history of the World in the most marvellous of ways, may he (saw) forever be blessed.
And so by God's abundant grace I am Muslim, may He deign to keep me so. Ameen.
Location:Sulaymaniyah
Wednesday, 26 June 2013
The Miraculous Eyebrow
The Miraculous Eyebrow
I, for one, have never attempted this experiment. Nevertheless it is telling.
"Shave your eyebrow, just the one. And watch it grow right back."
Obviously the trick is not in the timescale, since it would take a few weeks.
The real trick is in the contemplation of the regrowth of the eyebrow. So complete is its enaction of what it was, that the pair would never ever seem to have been parted at all.
Contemplate.
Can evolutionary genetics account for this complete fulfilment of what was?
We know that hair in different parts of the body behave differently, and that their fineness in one part might be coded for separately from their coarseness in another part of your body.
We know that DNA, the very stuff of our genetic code, provides a template for protein expression and the relative abundance of one protein, over another, in one type of hair follicle, over another in another part of the body, might account for different tensile strengths and different grades of brittleness.
And that this might account for there being short hair and long hair in different parts of your body, and even different thicknesses of hair types.
But the eyebrow is miraculous.
It grew back and then stopped growing. Or it grew at a moderate pace and then it's pace of growth slowed to the imperceptible.
Either way it's hair grew until it had formed completely the shape of your previous eyebrow and then stopped or slowed.
How did it know when to slow or stop growth?
How did each individual hair follicle in your eyebrow know when it's desired length had been reached?
Although I don't generally like to labour a point, I feel that I need to here for the devil is in the detail.
For if we take the materialist point, and the genetic point, then each individual hair follicle in your eyebrow would have coded within it it's particular protein composition.
And if its matter of growth was given by the brittleness of its composition then wouldn't it be a probabilistic expression of that particular nature. Might not one overgrow, and another undergrow.
Still more incredible is its growing at a moderate rate, and then slowing the rate of growth when a particular length had been achieved.
The materialist will say that it doesn't know when to stop, and that it is just our projection of ourselves on to it.
That we know, and that it can't and so doesn't. Sounds a bit dogmatic doesn't it?
The funny thing is that that is not how rationality works.
Rationality moves from known to unknown and not in the reverse direction.
And whilst we know that we know, perhaps the very definition of consciousness, to impart ignorance to other things without proof of such is a movement in a reverse direction. It is an assault on the very essence of rationality itself.
The foundation of Modern Science ASSUMES that objects that are non-living, and even some that might be living, do not and cannot know.
Modern Science tells us that "genes" are not living and do not know.
That the hair follicles in an eyebrow are governed by such not-knowing genes.
Then how so the EYE-BROW?
Of course another explanation might be that the eyebrow has purpose and knows its purpose and seeks to fulfil its purpose.
Crazy as it may seem, it explains the thing in a language which is more readily rational, in that we can relate to it more easily than dead robotics, than current Science.
In fact this current of thought was at the very foundations of Scientific thinking, being known as Aristotlian. For the Greeks held that stones, and all matter, fell not because of seeking decreasing potentials within a gravitational field, but because that was what they did in seeking their nature. A purposive understanding of a purposive World.
That this view of reality held sway for long is no surprise, but what is surprising is that Science developed in the way that it did.
But that is a subject of another blog.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
I, for one, have never attempted this experiment. Nevertheless it is telling.
"Shave your eyebrow, just the one. And watch it grow right back."
Obviously the trick is not in the timescale, since it would take a few weeks.
The real trick is in the contemplation of the regrowth of the eyebrow. So complete is its enaction of what it was, that the pair would never ever seem to have been parted at all.
Contemplate.
Can evolutionary genetics account for this complete fulfilment of what was?
We know that hair in different parts of the body behave differently, and that their fineness in one part might be coded for separately from their coarseness in another part of your body.
We know that DNA, the very stuff of our genetic code, provides a template for protein expression and the relative abundance of one protein, over another, in one type of hair follicle, over another in another part of the body, might account for different tensile strengths and different grades of brittleness.
And that this might account for there being short hair and long hair in different parts of your body, and even different thicknesses of hair types.
But the eyebrow is miraculous.
It grew back and then stopped growing. Or it grew at a moderate pace and then it's pace of growth slowed to the imperceptible.
Either way it's hair grew until it had formed completely the shape of your previous eyebrow and then stopped or slowed.
How did it know when to slow or stop growth?
How did each individual hair follicle in your eyebrow know when it's desired length had been reached?
Although I don't generally like to labour a point, I feel that I need to here for the devil is in the detail.
For if we take the materialist point, and the genetic point, then each individual hair follicle in your eyebrow would have coded within it it's particular protein composition.
And if its matter of growth was given by the brittleness of its composition then wouldn't it be a probabilistic expression of that particular nature. Might not one overgrow, and another undergrow.
Still more incredible is its growing at a moderate rate, and then slowing the rate of growth when a particular length had been achieved.
The materialist will say that it doesn't know when to stop, and that it is just our projection of ourselves on to it.
That we know, and that it can't and so doesn't. Sounds a bit dogmatic doesn't it?
The funny thing is that that is not how rationality works.
Rationality moves from known to unknown and not in the reverse direction.
And whilst we know that we know, perhaps the very definition of consciousness, to impart ignorance to other things without proof of such is a movement in a reverse direction. It is an assault on the very essence of rationality itself.
The foundation of Modern Science ASSUMES that objects that are non-living, and even some that might be living, do not and cannot know.
Modern Science tells us that "genes" are not living and do not know.
That the hair follicles in an eyebrow are governed by such not-knowing genes.
Then how so the EYE-BROW?
Of course another explanation might be that the eyebrow has purpose and knows its purpose and seeks to fulfil its purpose.
Crazy as it may seem, it explains the thing in a language which is more readily rational, in that we can relate to it more easily than dead robotics, than current Science.
In fact this current of thought was at the very foundations of Scientific thinking, being known as Aristotlian. For the Greeks held that stones, and all matter, fell not because of seeking decreasing potentials within a gravitational field, but because that was what they did in seeking their nature. A purposive understanding of a purposive World.
That this view of reality held sway for long is no surprise, but what is surprising is that Science developed in the way that it did.
But that is a subject of another blog.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Location:Athens
2nd blog in the series:
https://shafeesthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/08/why-greeks-didn-do-science.html?m=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)